[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <35a9ff9fa0980e1e8542d338c6bf1e0c@walle.cc>
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2023 10:07:27 +0100
From: Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
To: Steen Hegelund <steen.hegelund@...rochip.com>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Casper Andersson <casper.casan@...il.com>,
Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
Wan Jiabing <wanjiabing@...o.com>,
Nathan Huckleberry <nhuck@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Daniel Machon <daniel.machon@...rochip.com>,
Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>,
Lars Povlsen <lars.povlsen@...rochip.com>,
Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/8] Add support for two classes of VCAP rules
Hi Steen,
thanks for adding me on CC :) I was just about to reply on your v1.
Am 2023-01-06 09:53, schrieb Steen Hegelund:
> This adds support for two classes of VCAP rules:
>
> - Permanent rules (added e.g. for PTP support)
> - TC user rules (added by the TC userspace tool)
>
> For this to work the VCAP Loopups must be enabled from boot, so that
> the
> "internal" clients like PTP can add rules that are always active.
>
> When the TC tool add a flower filter the VCAP rule corresponding to
> this
> filter will be disabled (kept in memory) until a TC matchall filter
> creates
> a link from chain 0 to the chain (lookup) where the flower filter was
> added.
>
> When the flower filter is enabled it will be written to the appropriate
> VCAP lookup and become active in HW.
>
> Likewise the flower filter will be disabled if there is no link from
> chain
> 0 to the chain of the filter (lookup), and when that happens the
> corresponding VCAP rule will be read from the VCAP instance and stored
> in
> memory until it is deleted or enabled again.
I've just done a very quick smoke test and looked at my lan9668 board
that the following error isn't printed anymore. No functional testing.
vcap_val_rule:1678: keyset was not updated: -22
And it is indeed gone. But I have a few questions regarding how these
patches are applied. They were first sent for net, but now due to
a remark that they are too invasive they are targeted at net-next.
But they have a Fixes: tag. Won't they be eventually backported to
later kernels in any case? What's the difference between net and
net-next then?
Also patches 3-8 (the one with the fixes tags) don't apply without
patch 1-2 (which don't have fixes tags). IMHO they should be
reordered.
Wouldn't it make more sense, to fix the regression via net (and
a Fixes: tag) and then make that stuff work without tc? Maybe
the fix is just reverting the commits.
-michael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists